Self-sustainable Decentralized Governance by Blockchain

[orangecycle]

I see it more like this, pardon the total change of venue.

BitCoin surged to $1200. For no reason. It was noting but hype pump.

Who was there to fill in REAL support so it would stay there? The value was present. It was squandered.

It's not just moving the decimal point, but filling in REAL things like ADOPTION that keep it there. MN operators are vested in this in a key way that has never existed in crypto before.

So, that answers your question from the other end. MN operators will not be solely concerned with doing the math, but filling in the infrastructure by using value that is already there. They won't just want to, they'll be foaming at the mouth to do it! What good is it if your MN is worth a quarter million for a day, then goes back to nothing again? M operators will be voting yes on every project that expands the input potential. Like jumping in the air ad having someone pile 2 feet of dirt under you so you don't come back down. Do it again, and again...

Masternode owners are smart. They will either act to move the value of the currency or act to maintain the value (in the case of an artificial rise in valuation).

I have to admit that I accepted the proposal on face value when I first read it, but now I'm coming around to the arguments made by camosoul.

 

[masternode]

^^^ This is a very biased presentation of the options.

 

[Solarminer]

^^^ This is a biased presentation of the options.

My bias is based on being a masternode owner and wanting the best for DASH!

 

[camosoul]

Masternode owners are smart. They will either act to move the value of the currency or act to maintain the value (in the case of an artificial rise in valuation).

I have to admit that I accepted the proposal on face value when I first read it, but now I'm coming around to the arguments made by camosoul.

If value surges to $6, like it did a little while ago, MN operators will be hammering the yes button because we can get twice as much done for the same block percentage.

How many DASH MN operators are cashing out their DASH payments? I'm sure there are a few, probably the shared-node operators, but I've never actually heard a story about it, nor have any evidence to support the claim that any MN operator has actually cashed his payments out... All I ever do is re-mix and then make more nodes with the payments of the previous nodes... And donate anonymously to projects.

 

[camosoul]

^^^ This is a very biased presentation of the options.

One could even call it prejudiced; against bad ideas.

 

[masternode]

My bias is based on being a masternode owner and wanting the best for DASH!

Not true. If so, you would point out that the 15% allocation model (that you refer to as mandatory donation model) has an extremely large pro which is that it is more aligned with the long term goals of Dash akin to a publicly traded company has a budget committee. Having people constantly vote to give up money will ultimately fail as people will tend to vote to give up less and keep more for themselves.

 

[masternode]

One could even call it prejudiced; against bad ideas.

If that were true there wouldn't be countless examples of how this model successfully works in the public markets.

 

[camosoul]

Camosoul, I really think there is a big advantage to having a fund up front, and returning excesses. It allows us to pay in a timely manner and get projects started right away. I don't think a proposal should be given the entire budget to do the job, but rather, get paid as each milestone is met. We should not have to trust our contractors, especially if some of them want to be anonymous. But when a portion of the work is completed, sure, we can pay for it. But it's easier to work this when you have the funds ready to go. The excess can be returned later, and in fact, the amount taken in the first place can be re-set as the value of the coin goes up.

I really think that waiting to put funds aside until after a project is decided upon is far too clunky. That's my only objection. I totally agree that we can't have a boondoggle sitting out there for scammers to collect on, but we need to be nimble, we need to be able to move on things when the opportunity comes up. Otherwise we'll be as sluggish as Bitcoin still, and somebody else will pass us by.

I see your point, and it has merit.

But I think that merit is outweighed by the complications that come with it.

We can get very close to the same merits without those complications. Key of these is the problem of refunding and pork barreling... There's no real answer to those, and they're not small things.

Lets say the imaginary benefits are real.

We get a little more speed. We get an abuse-able pork barrel and a divisive refund policy that someone can always find fault with...

If we do it my way, we get slightly less speed, and none of the problems.

This speed scenario is actually imaginary tho...

Even if the benefit were real, it still isn't worth it.

Lets use algebra.

Since the speed benefit is marginal to non-existent, lets call it 0.

So, we have a proposal that has a pork barrel and a divisive refund system.

OR.

We have none of those problems.

Choice gets really easy when you do the math...

 

[camosoul]

If that were true there wouldn't be countless examples of how this model successfully works in the public markets.

It doesn't function, it dysfunctions.

We have the option to stop being dysfunctional. I think we should take it.

 

[thelonecrouton]

Also worth noting, anyone trying to compare this to failed government budgeting programs is making a seriously flawed comparison.
...
The key difference is that in government programs voting parties don't have a financial stake in the outcome.

Are you for real? Here on Earth you'll find that the voting parties in government all-you-can-slurp schemes do indeed have a financial stake in the outcome.

 

[camosoul]

Not true. If so, you would point out that the 15% allocation model (that you refer to as mandatory donation model) has an extremely large pro which is that it is more aligned with the long term goals of Dash akin to a publicly traded company has a budget committee. Having people constantly vote to give up money will ultimately fail as people will tend to vote to give up less and keep more for themselves.

We still have a budget committe. We just don't give them a pork barrel to abuse.

No one stops voting to make their slice of the pie go to the Africa...

"Shit, I have too much money, how do I piss on this fortune I have..."

 

[TanteStefana]

I see your point, and it has merit.

But I think that merit is outweighed by the complications that come with it.

We can get very close to the same merits without those complications. Key of these is the problem of refunding and pork barreling... There's no real answer to those, and they're not small things.

Lets say the imaginary benefits are real.

We get a little more speed. We get an abuse-able pork barrel and a divisive refund policy that someone can always find fault with...

If we do it my way, we get slightly less speed, and none of the problems.

This speed scenario is actually imaginary tho...

Even if the benefit were real, it still isn't worth it.

But how do you see the pork barrel being abusable? I mean, if the Masternodes don't agree to spend it because nothing merits the funding, then nobody can get their hands on it. And if it's coded in that excess funds at the end of the year, after savings, goes into a new account that distributes the funds by putting 1/#ofblocksperyear into each block for the following year, well then, it appropriately gets redistributed back from whence it came. If masternodes/miners change, that's just their choice. I think it would have minimal blockchain bloat, it's easy to code, and keeps the funds from building up. It comes back to the question: "will masternodes waste it or put it back into the system?"

Nobody else can touch it except for a successful Masternode vote. And they can't vote it to take back just for themselves, and not even in a big chunk, no easy snatching can happen.

Also, if a return happens, lets say 1% of the funds go back into the system for the following year, I'd bet we'd get 1% more masternodes and 1% more miners, and nobody would be any richer anyway. However, the funds would go back into the system giving liquidity to the system.

 

[camosoul]

But how do you see the pork barrel being abusable? I mean, if the Masternodes don't agree to spend it because nothing merits the funding, then nobody can get their hands on it. And if it's coded in that excess funds at the end of the year, after savings, goes into a new account that distributes the funds by putting 1/#ofblocksperyear into each block for the following year, well then, it appropriately gets redistributed back from whence it came. If masternodes/miners change, that's just their choice. I think it would have minimal blockchain bloat, it's easy to code, and keeps the funds from building up. It comes back to the question: "will masternodes waste it or put it back into the system?"

Then the argument becomes one of simply "Why the hell are we making this so complicated when we could just unplug it like a miner?"

Also, that payback structure doesn't match how it was taken.

It's a tax refund. Do you really want the IRS model in DASH? How about not taking it in the first place? How many paychecks have you had in your life? Think about it...

You're talking bout doing this on a YEARLY scale? Speed, I thought, was your argument? Wha...?

You been out there with the hippies too long...

 

[masternode]

Are you for real? Here on Earth you'll find that the voting parties in government all-you-can-slurp schemes do indeed have a financial stake in the outcome.

You think those financial incentives are the same as those held by top management in publicly traded companies? They are dramatically different which will result in a completely different dynamic.

 

[camosoul]

But how do you see the pork barrel being abusable? I mean, if the Masternodes don't agree to spend it because nothing merits the funding, then nobody can get their hands on it.

This damn near answers itself. MN operators are the budget committee, they now have to be overly cautious of accusations of porking a project simply becasue pork is available. They'll be more prone to say no so that public outcry doesn't tank value...

 

[camosoul]

You think those financial incentives are the same as those held by top management in publicly traded companies? They are dramatically different which will result in a completely different dynamic.

Yeah, they are different. The government ones are no strings, no consequences.

 

[masternode]

Then the argument becomes one of simply "Why the hell are we making this so complicated when we could just unplug it like a miner?"

Also, that payback structure doesn't match how it was taken.

It's a tax refund. Do you really want the IRS model in DASH? How about not taking it in the first place? How many paychecks have you had in your life? Think about it...

You're talking bout doing this on a YEARLY scale? Speed, I thought, was your argument? Wha...?

You been out there with the hippies too long...

The payback structure would exactly match how it was taken. You vote for 15% allocation to the program. If the overall SDGB program fails then you vote to end it. It inherently takes a longer view, and avoids constant no votes on projects because people want to give up less.

 

[camosoul]

because people want to give up less.

This argument has already been shown false and empty. Stop holding it up. It's proven dead. You may as well say "Evan pre-mined" over and over again.

Maybe, if a project gets constant no votes, it's because that project sucks?

If every employee at wal mart got to vote on how much they got paid, all the minimum wage assholes would vote to pay themselves 3x as much, bankrupt the company, and still be dirt poor becasue they make bad decision, always.

Bad decision makers don't come to be MN operators. That's why only MN operators get a vote. It's not up to every damn idiot who can't understand why life is so hard when it;s their own damn fault... It's up to the competent who prove their competence by being un-dumb enough to run an MN or 30... I'm not all that smart, I'm just un-stupid.

Like I try to tell people who pay rent; "You can't accelerate doing dumb shit until you finally come out ahead of the dumb shit. You just end up digging the hole deeper. You can't spend your way out of debt. You just have to stop doing dumb shit. Whatever it takes."

 

[Solarminer]

If greed[by masternodes not approving funds] will not allow us to invest in the development - there will appear other more reasonable projects that implement this model and will implement it effectively - so the best people and so on will go there.

Therefore Dash community should reject greed and reinforce their ambitions by real actions and decisions.

Alex-ru,
I think you are worried about the wrong greedy party. Masternode owners will vote for valuable to DASH projects. They will not steal other members funds. They are investors and owners of the future value of DASH.

If DASH was force funneled/mandatory donated/taxed into a pot, how well do you think it would be spent? We are talking over the years and new people coming into the mix, the value of dash going up, now the pot is $1million/mo. Foundation says no more voting. Raise the tax to 20%. Travel is now a priority. Trips to Hawaii for all the members for conference xyz. Now lets open offices in 10 cities and sell T-shirts and hot dogs. I get that there are reasons to have funds available. Create a project(foundation cash or whatever) for needed funding and it gets voted on. I would hope the project is actually to do something or for something useful though.

My biggest issue is how to store excess funds from a mandatory donation model. No matter how you do it, it will be exposed to theft, loss, or misuse. Plus you have a wasted expense to manage and protect the funds. If I say Bitcoin, do you think of any problems with MtGox, Bitstamp, BFL. If it has happened so frequently in bitcoin, it could happen with DASH. Crypto value is so easy to transfer, this aspect should not be underestimated.

 

[TanteStefana]

I really don't see a reason to give those funds back to masternodes or miners "who were there" because the fact that taking 15% out in the first place, reduced the number of masternodes and miners. When you put it back in each block reward, you will increase the masternodes and the miners, with each one getting the same rewards they previously got. The pressure of income (ROI) is what prompts people to create Masternodes or mine, and they create them quickly when they see it's an acceptable return. We have been seeing the same number of coins as a reward for quite a while despite the fact that the reward has been going up 2.5% each month.

Anyway, i really think that's the best way to go:

set 15% now, as per Evan's proposal.
Set a top limit to any excess funds to be reserved in savings, and return the rest through block rewards.
re-evaluate the 15% every * years to see if it merits being reduced. reducing it would help masternode owners and miners plan for the future (mine more/set up more masternodes)

Hell, and we haven't even scratched the surface here of how to manage / pay projects or even the voting requirements (percent of participation) and probably a dozen other issues, LOL. Isn't this fun?

Camosoul quote: "You been out there with the hippies too long... " LOL, You know I absolutely adore you, right? But I think you're not seeing what I'm trying to say. I totally agree, spending must be curtailed if not in everyone's best interest, and no pork barrel projects. I totally agree!